The blog that NOBODY reads... but everyone gets upset about.
Exposing the dark underside of the political world of Clark County, Washington... The least read and most talked about blog around.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Jayne's CRC confusion mystifies.

Every CRC Scammer recites this revisionist history:

One of the gross misnomers put forth by
critics is the assertion that the public was not adequately included in
the process. Considering the number of public meetings that were held
and the vast amount of discussion that went into the project, complaints
about a lack of public input are straw man arguments.

There was no "public inclusion" that got beyond the nearest dumpster. None.

That there were "public meetings" of course, cannot be denied. I attended a few of them myself... but then, it became clear that nothing said or written at those meetings was going to make ANY difference... it became a matter of "why bother?"

And that's the problem here. CRC Scammers like Jayne doggedly insist that there was "public input."

But when I ask them: "So... this 'public input' you talk about. Can you show anything, anywhere, where that 'input' made any difference?"

Of course not.

Jayne continues on in his revisionist vein by ignoring the CRC Memo where efforts to eliminate any impacts from public input were set into policy.

The approval of the locally preferred alternative by the PSC would
trigger individual agency public hearings. Each elected official body
(Board of Directors, Commission, City Council, and so on) would take
action, presumably to endorse the locally preferred alternative
recommended by the PSC. The PSC members would be entrusted to make the
other decisions on behalf of their fellow elected officials with no need
for public hearings or individual agency endorsements.

And:

At each decision point, the PDT would disseminate a briefing packet ten
days in advance of the meeting containing the following information:

• The PDT’s recommendation
• The Task Force recommendation• A summary of public comment• A summary of agency comment. I am
assuming the concurrence points (formal or informal) of the joint
regulatory review group would precede the PSC decision points, but this
bears more thought and discussion with Jeff and Heather. It seems risky
to me to have the PSC decide something, only to discover that the joint
agency group disagrees or wants a different wording of the document.

And:

I assume that each PSC member would be briefed in advance of the decision meetings by senior staff of their organizations. Senior staff is responsible for providing requested information and responding to questions. It is expected that each of the PSC decision meetings would result in a decision with no need for extended deliberations in future meetings. This approach would require extensive coordination among PDT members prior to the meetings.

The decision meetings would be open to the public, but only
minimum legal notices would be provided and no display advertising would
be placed. We would not encourage public participation. The
Task Force chairs would be expected to attend and respond to PSC
questions concerning the Task Force recommendations. Task Force members
would be made award of the meetings. Meeting notes would be prepared and
posted on the website.

And:

Non-decision meetings should be treated as opportunities for the PSC members to advise the PDT on key issues. No
“official” decisions should be made at the meetings. No public notice
would be provided and Task Force participation would not be sought. Meeting notes would be prepared but not posted on the website (the same as RPG and working group meeting notes).

See, that's the thing. Is it even possible Jayne was unaware of the efforts the CRC Scammers used to do everything they could to AVOID meaningful public input? Is it even on the table that Jayne hasn't yet figured out that these meetings were ONLY for show and had nothing to do with actually making any changes in the plan?

Maybe he should review his boss's column on the subject, a few days later, wherein even Lefty acknowledged that the CRC was screwing us on that "public input" bullshit.

When should the public be involved in a public project? Early and often.
There is no appropriate time to obstruct the people's participation in
the people's work.That basic principle either escaped the understanding
of Columbia River Crossing officials in 2005, or they intentionally
circumvented it.

I get that CRC Scammers make the claim, over and over and over again that there WAS "public input" at "public meetings."

Well, that whack job running Korea, Kim Jung Il has "public meetings" as well. How much "input" is HE taking?

So, when the CRC Scammers insist on "misrepresenting" or revising what really happened... that's when their credibility on any other issue crumbles.

For Jayne, who seems to cling to the idea that the CRC was, apparently, a group project of kumbya where everyone had buy-in instead of a project of lies, distortions and ignoring the people of this county to refer to anyone else's efforts as "fairy dust" and such a plan showing a "tenuous grip on reality?"

I dunno, Greg... you either lied in your column today... or you just flat out reinforced the increasingly obvious conclusion that you've got no fricking clue what the hell you're babbling about.

Follow by Email

Subscribe To

Words of Wisdom

"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth."

Plato

"This country has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than all the other nations in the history of the world combined, and I'm tired of people feeling like they've got to apologize for America."

Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN)

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

George Orwell, the author of 1984

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

Dr. Martin Luther King

"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."

Alexis de Tocqueville

"A return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example."Niccolo Machiavelli

“Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Washington State Constitution, Declaration of Rights

"All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." - Article 1, Section 1

"The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged." - Article 1, Section 4

"The first power reserved by the people is the initiative." - Article 2, Section 1(a)